[extropy-chat] Re: Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's paradox: m/d approach)

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com>
To: "'Dirk Bruere'" <dirk at neopax.com>; "'ExI chat list'"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's paradox: m/d approach)


> Dirk Bruere wrote,
> > I think the most likely explanation is the Simulation
> > Argument.

> I find the Simulation Argument violates Occam's Razor.  It adds complexity
> ...thinks it is or not.  The acceptance of the Simulation Argument seems
to
> require a rejection of science.

I do not think Occam's Razor applies, or if it does, it favours the
Simulation Argument.
The only premise required is that simulations of the complexity we see
around us are possible using modest resources.

> I also find the statistical analysis of the Simulation Argument to be
> suspect.  The claim seems to be that there are more simulations than real

Well, I'm not getting into a stats argument.
They are never ending and never resolvable.

> universes because more than one simulation can fit into each universe.
That
> is about as useful as claiming we must be inside an atom because there are
> so many more atoms than universes.  Any simulation within a universe is
> incomplete.  A complete simulation of the entire universe would expand to
> take resources in the real universe until a 100% utilization of resources
> could produce a 100% perfect simulation of the real universe.  Any lesser
> simulation is really a fraction of the size/duration/complexity of the
real
> universe and should count proportionately less.  In fact, the sum total of
> all simulations within a real universe should be less that of the
containing
> universe.

It all depends on the scale of the simulation.
The simplest, a Matrix style simulation, requires very little processing
power (but IMO is ruled out by the effects of hallucinogens).
I doubt whether any sane creator would opt for a Planck  level simulation of
an entire universe across 13.7b yrs - it's just unnecessary

> The size/duration/complexity of all real universes is larger than the
> size/duration/complexity of all their simulations put together.  Unless
> simulations tend to take over 100% of a universe's total resources before
> the universe's lifespan is half over, real unconsumed resources outnumber
> simulated resources.  Even going with the Simulation Argument's faulty
> premise, the statistics still don't seem to support the conclusion.

Stats are only as good as the assumptions.
Consider 'The Golden Age' entertainments.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org